Jury Prepares for Jefferson Bribery Case

Thursday

Jul 30, 2009 at 5:09 AM

Prosecutors made their closing arguments in the bribery case against William J. Jefferson, a former Democratic congressman.

NEIL A. LEWIS

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — Former Representative William J. Jefferson put his office up for sale and intended to get “top dollar for it,” prosecutors said Wednesday in closing arguments at his corruption trial.

With both the prosecution and the defense completing their presentations, the jury is expected to begin deliberations on Thursday in the case against Mr. Jefferson, who is charged with 16 counts of bribery and other offenses.

A former Louisiana Democrat, Mr. Jefferson is accused of improperly seeking millions of dollars from various African business ventures, as well as seeking to bribe the vice president of Nigeria. In a 2005 raid, the F.B.I. found $90,000 neatly wrapped in aluminum foil in Mr. Jefferson’s home freezer.

The six-week trial consisted almost exclusively of prosecutors laying out their case that Mr. Jefferson schemed to use his office to promote initiatives by American companies in Africa. In exchange for his help, prosecutors said, Mr. Jefferson required the companies to provide generous benefits to relatives, including his wife, brother and sons-in-law.

The defense presentation on Tuesday lasted barely two hours. Mr. Jefferson, 62, who represented New Orleans for 18 years until voted out last year, did not take the stand.

Rebeca Bellows, a federal prosecutor, told the jury on Wednesday that Mr. Jefferson “year after year, scheme after scheme, betrayed the trust of the people of New Orleans.” She noted that witnesses had testified during the trial that Mr. Jefferson regularly increased the amount of kickbacks he was demanding. He was greedy, she said.

Robert Trout, Mr. Jefferson’s lawyer, argued to the jury that Mr. Jefferson’s activities in promoting the business ventures to African governments did not qualify as “official acts” under public corruption laws.

Although Mr. Jefferson had solicited support from both American agencies and senior African government officials, often using his Congressional stationery and office staff, Mr. Trout told the jury that they were not official acts. He said that Mr. Jefferson never introduced legislation or sought budget earmarks for any of the projects.

“All he did was carry himself like a congressman” while involved in the ventures, Mr. Trout said. He said that Mr. Jefferson was involved in a private capacity because, as an African-American, “He loved to help Africa.”

Mr. Jefferson, a tall and courtly figure, had long been a popular official in New Orleans and capitalized on his life story as someone who picked cotton as a youth and eventually graduated from Harvard Law School.

His family of five daughters — three of whom also graduated from Harvard Law School — and his wife sat directly behind him reading Scriptures on Wednesday.

The Jefferson investigation pitted Congress against the Justice Department in a dispute over whether the F.B.I. violated the Constitution’s separation of powers by raiding his Congressional office and seizing documents.

An appeals court ruled that the bureau’s search was constitutionally flawed and ordered some documents returned to him; the Supreme Court let that ruling stand.

Although prosecutors spoke of tens of millions of dollars in potential gain for Mr. Jefferson and his relatives, most of the schemes never materialized and far less money changed hands. His wife, for example, was given large blocks of stock in a company that went bust.

His brother, Mose Jefferson, made $21,000 on a sugar deal, evidence showed. And Vernon L. Jackson, a businessman, pleaded guilty and is serving a term of more than seven years for paying $367,000 to Mr. Jefferson over a four-year period.

In her summation, Ms. Bellows showed the jury a photo of the aluminum-foil-clad cash in brick-size portions surrounding a box of frozen Pillsbury pie crusts. The money in the freezer came from the F.B.I. via a cooperating witness whose conversations with Mr. Jefferson were taped in audio and video.

In 2005, the F.B.I. provided $100,000 through the witness, Lori Mody, to bribe Atiku Abubakar, then the Nigerian vice president, for help with a telecommunications deal involving Mr. Jackson’s company.

In his summation, Mr. Trout acknowledged that Mr. Jefferson agreed to try to bribe Mr. Abubakar. “He did something stupid,” Mr. Trout told the jury, blaming it partly on the entreaties of Ms. Mody, a businesswoman hoping to conduct business in Africa. Mr. Trout argued that Mr. Jefferson never intended to go through with the bribe and that is why most of the money was found in the freezer.

Prosecutors said that Mr. Abubakar left Washington for Nigeria earlier than Mr. Jefferson had expected and failed to get the money to him in time.

Because of his agreement to pay the bribe, Mr. Jefferson was the first member of Congress to be charged with violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a law usually used against American businesses.